CheetahC From South Africa, joined Apr 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12124 times:
The Vitara is a lot more capable off-road, it is much more of a proper 4x4 than the Honda. So if you really need a 4x4 to go off-road buy the Suzuki, otherwise buy the Honda, which probably has better resale value too.
Vitara has a low range transfer case, locking differentials, good ground clearance etc. The Honda makes do with a viscous coupling and electronics, it is primarily front wheel driven until grip is lost. The problem is that power is only sent to the rear wheels once the front wheels have started spinning, not the best solution for off roading. You could easily get stuck before the rear wheels are being driven, also the fluid in viscous couplings can overheat and replacing the coupling is apparently quite expensive.
I'd still have the Honda though, unless I need to do serious off road driving.
I guess it depends on the model. With the 4 cylinder engine there is very little to differentiate it from the CRV. But the V6 model comes with higher torque and higher ground clearance and Suzuki claims the body construction is better for off-roading.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8442 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12070 times:
I don't think they get the V6 Vitara in India, plus the Vitara is assembled in India so I wouldn't expect excellent build quality, the CR-V is imported fully assembled, the CR-V is a good car, better than the Vitara, especially if you are comparing diesels.
Afterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11937 times:
Quoting A332 (Reply 17): Neither. Those two vehicles are typically owned by slow/bad Asian drivers... *shudder*
The OP is an Asian living in Asia. He's asking which of the two would/might be better for him. So your comment is irrelevant, if not slightly insulting. Besides, American gas-guzzlers and European luxury SUVs aren't quite suitable for most Asian roads.
FRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11920 times:
I would definitely recommend the CR-V over the Suzuki. Though I may be a little biased considering I myself own a CR-V. That shouldn't matter though since it is clearly the better vehicle with as many others have mentioned with one of the highest resale values in the business (pretty much every recent Honda falls under this area). I own a 2007 CR-V and absolutely LOVE IT! Have had no problems with it and has had no service except the occasional oil change. Even though it has a 4 cylinder engine, the power that it puts out feels almost no difference from your standard V6's. I could go on and on...
"Drunk drivers run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
I have a friend that owned a 2002 Honda CR-V and it was truly bulletproof. He puts 50 to 60K miles a year on his vehicles due to the nature of his job and the CR-V was completely trouble free. A little underpowered in the "high country" of Northern Arizona, but it got 25 mpg consistently on the highway. He's owned 3 new Honda since then (2 Accords (which were both stolen in Phoenix) and a Passport); while he loved his Accords, the Passport was actually a "badge engineered" Isuzu Rodeo and it sucked - blown head gasket, transmission failed twice, ABS/brake cylinder problems, etc.). I'd highly recommend the CR-V too.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin